5 ms·
Id put it in the same category as RDF - largely unusable. I think data is much wider than 'what can be stored in tables' - that's the whole problem. Although
by gord 17y ago
Id put it in the same category as RDF - largely unusable.
I think data is much wider than 'what can be stored in tables' - that's the whole problem.
Although all data could be stored in tables and accessed via SQL, it shouldn't be. I contend we need to optimize for the common case of tree / graph data and fidn something much better than SQL.
- mblakele 17y agoIs SQL also "unusable"? XQuery is quite a bit more powerful than SQL is. RDF, on the other hand, isn't a query language. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare XQuery to SPARQL?
- gord 17y agoWell, Id say SQL is close to unusable.. it has just enough good design to explain its long life. I do respect it. SQL is a bit like Cobol - served us well for 30 years, time to move on.